Pivot - Newsom's Senate Pick, SCOTUS Takes on Social Media, and Guest New York Times Pitchbot

Episode Date: October 3, 2023

Kara and Scott discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom's choice of Laphonza Butler for Dianne Feinstein's senate seat, and whether Kevin McCarthy could be ousted as Speaker of the House. Plus, the Supreme Court adds two cases to the docket that could have a major impact on the future of social media. Our Friend of Pivot is New York Times Pitchbot, who stops by to talk about his popular Twitter account, and how he captures the media zeitgeist with his headlines and hot takes. Follow New York Times Pitchbot at @DougJBalloon Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher, and I'm in California.

I'm Scott Galloway, and I'm traumatized. Why? Why? Over the weekend, I realized this is old news. I watched the Code interview with Linda Iaccarino. Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I'm not exaggerating, Kara. I think that was probably the worst performance

by a CEO I've seen in a decade. Tell me. I will tell you. We've talked about how it went down. I'll tell you how it went down. Go ahead. I just feel like she got up there and seemed detached, delusional, angry. It's really difficult to come across as insecure and aloof at the same time.

I thought it just struck me as someone who was so out of their depth. It was just, dumpster fire is the, I'm not exaggerating, like 10 minutes into it, I'm like, I'm uncomfortable watching this on YouTube. Yeah. Try being in the room. Try being in the room. It was- What was the mood like in the room? It was so weird. She lost the crowd right away. You know, I got blamed for ambushing her. I don't know if you heard that about that part.

What happened was there was just a Mary Barrett couldn't come. Yoel was actually the third person I asked. Thought he'd be interesting. I've done an interview with him previously, but not before he got called a pedophile by Elon Musk on Twitter or insinuated that he was a pedophile. it caused him all kinds of havoc, including selling his house, death threats. So I was going to always have him back, and he happened to be in L.A., and so we had him down. We told Linda that morning, and she had plenty of time to prepare. He also didn't say anything on stage that was anything different than he'd said before, including in the New York Times.

He's such an articulate and kind person. And he was quite magnanimous to Linda because she wasn't there. And for some reason, it really tweaked her, I guess. Not our fault at shaken, I guess. That person did not show up. When she was asked what she thought of Yoel's comments, her response was, well, he worked for Twitter, I work for X. Yeah. I mean, that is the most.

I work for X. I mean, that is the most. And then when asked about the accusations of anti-Semitism and the fact that Elon is going after one of 60 companies that signed this letter, or organizations, I should say, she sue someone who employed their rights to free speech, but you're a free speech player. I mean, the whole thing was like a series of awkward, cringey inconsistencies, not one piece of data. It was just, anyways, let's move on. I don't even like... It was just, anyways, let's move on. I don't even like. We will. I just want to say Julia Boorstin did a very good job with that. Obviously, the interview changed. She did a good job.

We're going to see what will happen. I've asked her to come on my podcast, so we'll see. Good luck with that. She might. Good luck with that. That's a baller move. Come and explain yourself. I think she knows she screwed up. But, yeah, I asked. I asked, why not? Anyway, it put a little zip into code, I'd say. But it was a very good talk. But you're still in the Bay Area?

I am in Los Angeles for four seconds. Wow. Supreme Court taking on social media and Matt Gaetz taking on Kevin McCarthy. And we'll speak to a friend of Pivot. I'm so excited to talk to this guy, one of the funniest people on social media, New York Times pitch bot. First, LaFonza Butler, speaking of California, will be sworn in Wednesday to the late Senator Dianne Feinstein's seat. California Governor Gavin Newsom moved quickly to name the appointment after the Congress nearly averted a government shutdown. She runs Emily's List, a group that works to get Democratic women elected. I know her.

She's the first Black lesbian to openly serve in the U.S. Senate. Really incredible person. Newsom didn't place any restrictions on whether Butler could run for the seat in 2024. The race to fill it is already packed with Representatives Barbara Lee, Adam Schiff, and Katie Porter all running.

Any thoughts at all? I think it's great. She seems, I think it was a great pick. I think Governor Newsom did her a disservice by announcing he was going to pick a Black woman. Why would he announce that I'm limiting myself to 6% of the population? I think it's an insult to her. Why didn't he just, anyways, good for her. I think it's great.

We need more representation, and she seems like a thoughtful person. Yeah. Right on. I'm super impressed. It'll be interesting to see if she decides to run. I don't think she will. She's sort of a background player in politics in a lot of ways. I agree with you.

He shouldn't have said anything, but lots of politicians do this. I think Biden certainly did in the last election. I agree with you. He shouldn't have said anything, but lots of politicians do this. I think Biden certainly did in the last election. So, I know. But it's identity. We're susceptible on the left of, and this is a fair criticism, that we're angry that the right is obsessed with race, but we're obsessed with race when we start saying, okay, start saying, okay, she's a very talented person who has earned this appointment. Why would they limit it to attributes that people have no control over, which is our criticism of the right? I get it. I do think it's okay to indicate that, wow, we really need to have a more diverse... I think that's okay.

I would agree with you on this one, I have to say. That said, you know, you can still indicate that we want to have a more diverse Senate. You can say that. I don't think, like, look at the Senate. Look at the old white man Senate. I'm going to pick somebody outstanding. Oh, what do you know? I did pick someone outstanding. Isn't it great? She also happens to be Black and a member of the LGBT. Anyway. Yeah. I think we open ourselves to criticism of identity politics. All right.

Thanks, Bill Maher. Thanks, Bill Maher, for that. Anyway, speaking of Bill Maher. By the way, did you see his show? No. Did you see his show? No. I'm totally parroting Bill Maher. I know you are.

They pulled together an amazing show in two days. Sam Harris, kind of my role model and spiritual guru, was on. The writing was outstanding. They interviewed Governor DeSantis, and I thought he was, it was civil, yet he pushed back on him. I thought it was a fantastic show. All right. Okay. This is where we're going.

Okay. He's fine. He's fine. Don't mock me. Don't shame me. I will. I just, he does the same old, speaking of same old, same old. It's like, this is the left. This is the left. Same old fearless. Oh, stop it. All he does is attack

the left. He really does. And he used to attack the religion and the right. And he just, like, I'd like a little- He was pretty hard on the Santas. I get it. But I liked a little bit of, like, variance with him. That's all. That's all just a little open-minded. Okay. On a scale of one to 10, where do you think he is on the political spectrum? One being AOC or Elizabeth Warren and 10 being Ted Cruz. Where do you think he is? Oh, come on. I think he just is a contrarian by nature and that's it. That's his thing, like a lot of people. And I just would like to know. I don't know. I don't feel ever good when I watch it. I'm never getting on this show again. That's fine. I get a little tired of it. That's

all. I just think there's a lot of people like that. And I'd rather- There really aren't. He's singular. Who else is like him? Tongue bath. Who else is like him? Lots of comics. Tons of comics. Tons. Tons of them. I don't know why every single comic, but all the comics are different. I agree. Some of them, like Jimmy Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Oliver. Oliver is the one I like.

Come on. I like Oliver. They're all total liberals. They're all progressives. Oliver slaps real hard at the left, too. He does. He does. But he's not just a—

Deep blue. Bill Maher's gotten so whiny. I'm sorry. I'm just like, stop, stop, stop. I'm sorry. We're going to have to disagree on this one. I like John Oliver. You like Bill Maher.

We're just going to have to keep doing this show together and just agree to disagree on someone like that. Anyway, it's not just Bill Maher. The rest of late night TV returns this week following the end of the WGA strike. Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, and Seth Myers are pulling out all the stops with star-studded guest rosters, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Matthew McConaughey, and more. But peak TV is over, according to the Wall Street Journal. The article over the weekend predicted future hurdles for the industry, including show cancellations and fewer new productions while streamers work to cut spending. One veteran TV producer predicted the number of scripted shows could fall by one-third in the next few years.

Several of my friends who were writers got their contracts not extended and cut. And I think the Universal cut all of them, all their outstanding contracts. It's sort of like a bloodbath out here in terms of, you know, they keep people on contract. Now they're just not going to do it. Some who had popular shows got to stay, but for the most part, they really cleaned house, which they did before, but not to this extent, I think, from what I understand.

Yeah, well, we said this a couple of years ago. I remember just looking at the amount of money that was being spent on streaming and how much money Hollywood or Netflix and everyone trying to chase Netflix was spending to bring you Euphoria and Bridgerton. And you could just look at, I mean, at one point, I think I did the math once, for every house that had streaming, these companies were spending $2,200 a year to deliver that content to you. And this isn't the cost of technology or cable, just the cost of the content they were delivering. And it was totally unsustainable. So, distinct of the dynamics around the strike or the writer's guild, the reality is this is an industry that overspent trying to follow Netflix, who essentially established a strategy of growth that the markets loved and they could pull away from everybody else.

Everybody followed them. And now we're going to have massive consolidation, but it's still going to be unbelievable selection. It just got way out. The industry just got way out over its skis. The place that I think is really going to get hurt though, and I'm super curious to see what the ratings are. My thesis has been that late night TV that's kind of linear because you see the day's news and they're very charming personalities. I think it's a part of some people's kind of bedtime routine. And I wonder if the strike went on long enough such that people found substitutes and replaced those habits with something else and it never recovers. Yeah, there's too many of them and they're too many the same. And in that way, they're too, you know, like that's why Greg Gutfeld did very well. It was an alternative.

And that's why Bill Maher does well. It's an alternative. And so, I think people, you don't need six of the same people or five or whatever it is. Five, I guess it is. So it's difficult. I think, let me read from Matt Bellany on this one, because I think he's completely right. WGA strikes. Months of zero pay would hurt, of course, but once the strikes settled and the pain was over and the time off, the studio checks would just be added to the end of their deals. So yeah, welcome to post-strike Hollywood. For most TV writers under contract, the studios have flushed those assumptions down the toilet. A week after the WGA strike ended, hundreds of reinstated writers have been notified their deals will not be extended. And when many of these deals expire, they will not be renewed. It's bad. Texting with agents and lawyers this week and the estimates are anywhere between 60-80% of suspended writer deals have been impacted.

One major employer, Universal Studio Group, extended none of its suspended writers. So they got stuff in the deal, but this, I mean, this is what we've been talking about and why people are angry at you and me, well, me by extension, for saying this is problematic. For associating with me? Yeah. Guilt by association. You know, I keep reiterating what the Diller interview said,

which is tech is the problem, as you have too. But this is what the studios do when they have economic difficulties is cut and they don't need all those people. Yeah, like it's going to be, distinct to the strike, it's going to be a smaller industry. What I suss out of trying to parse through all the exceptional terms that the union garnered for its workers is that the best are going to get more money. And that's just a natural function of the economy. But there's going to be far fewer riders making a living.

A government shutdown is not happening. A few hours before the shutdown deadline on Saturday, the House passed a short-term funding measure to keep the government open through November. What a way to run a government. It's so ridiculous. But to get that measure passed, McCarthy had to work with the Democrats, which did not make his nemesis, Congressman Matt Gaetz, happy. Let's listen to what Gaetz told Jake Tapper on Sunday. And this was an excellent interview by Jake, by the way. I do intend to file a motion to vacate against Speaker McCarthy this week. I think we need to rip off the Band-Aid. I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy. McCarthy, for his part, is saying, bring it on. This shutdown seemed inevitable. He finally blanked and had to talk to the Democrats. Now his fate lays

in the hands of Democrats. So both of them are going to need the support of Democrats to make their plans work. AOC told CNN she would absolutely vote out McCarthy, but also, no, I don't think we give up votes for free. So what are we going to get for this? It's a really unusual situation. Yeah. So we talked about this in our predictions late last week. We said that either Linda or Speaker McCarthy wouldn't survive because they're not demonstrating any leadership. And to be fair, I think Speaker McCarthy did demonstrate leadership. It might cost him his job, but he said, I'm going to do what I think is right. And he passed, you know, granted, they're just kicking the can down the road.

But I think in a weird way, it might be an opportunity. If the Democrats say, fine, we'll support you, but we need an explicit guarantee. Senator Bennett, as always, does Yeoman's work here and made sure that senators from both sides of the aisle and President Biden committed, said, be clear, we will continue to ensure that Ukraine receives proper funding to push back on Putin. But I wonder, this might be actually an opportunity to have something resembling bipartisanship. I like the idea of the far left and the far right being bested by, I mean, he's supposed to be Speaker of the House, right? So is this an opportunity maybe for them to come together and say, okay, boss, you now are a speaker for 90% of this party and 10 or 20% of us, and we'll let you keep your job. I don't know.

I just, I think he did the right thing. I don't know. He might lose his job. I don't get a choice, right? I think he could have let it go down down and then they would have dumped him anyway. It's really interesting that everything is in the hands of Hakeem Jeffries, right? Where he decides to move the progressive group aside, it's not going to be enough votes. good at whipping everybody into shape and voting the way they want. Now there's all these people that are freelancing it, right? That's the way it is in politics now. Just like Matt Gaetz is sort of freelancing. What do people think is going to happen? I just don't have a feel for this. I don't know. I don't know what the Democrats will get. I mean, obviously, there's all kinds

of horse trading going on, but I assume Ukraine, of course, you know, there's a growing movement against Ukraine funding, right? It's only going to get stronger as it goes on. That's just inevitable too. And I don't know. I don't know what they could want. What could they want? The Democrats could help McCarthy get rid of this move to vacate thing from one person and make it 10, for example, so that McCarthy's not always, you know, this, Matt Gaetz can keep doing this every single day, you know, call for a motion to vacate, or not every day, they've got a vote on it, they have 48 hours. So he could do this 10 or 12 times like they did in that last ridiculous thing. I mean, the whole thing is just these people are really spending a lot of time on procedure, which is

really weird. Again, a bizarre moment in the shutdown was New York Congressman Jamel Bowman pulling the fire alarm in the congressional office building ahead of the vote. He said he wasn't trying to delay the vote, but activated the fire alarm mistakenly thinking it would open the door. He was a principal, so I think maybe that's not true. Kevin McCarthy and others, of course, have made the January 6th comparisons, which are ridiculous. But he shouldn't have pulled it. This whole thing is just, I don't know. I don't know. I was thinking about this.

You don't pull filer alarms. You just don't. And he should be punished, but the punishment should match the crime. And this isn't breaking in and trying to track down the vice president with a noose. But I don't think there's anything around it. That was wrong. He might go down in history as having done the right thing, but he was wrong to do that. I mean, you got to take these things seriously when there's a fire alarm. And if people pull them when there isn't a fire, you just reduce the likelihood people are going to take them seriously anyways. Did that ever happen in your school?

I don't think anyone ever did that when I was in school. Everyone sort of knew not to. Even the jerkiest jerk didn't do that. Oh, no. We had what was it called? A tardy alert where they would say, no, it was called, it was hilarious. It was called a tardy sweep. And someone would come over.

I went to a big public school. Someone would come over the loudspeaker and say, this is a tardy sweep. And if you weren't at your class, you got rounded up and like shuttled down to the cafeteria and you had to like sign up. And if you got more than two, and I'm not exaggerating. For those of us who had never been in a tardy suite before,

it was like an air raid alarm going off. We're like diving into windows into home economics, diving into strange classes. Will you hide me? Will you hide me? Huh. Interesting. Anyway, Jamal, mistake. Stupid. Don't be a child. You were a principal. I don't know where this is going. It's just, as usual, it just makes Congress seem idiotic is all I can tell you. That's all it does. I don't know what else to say. It's worse for the Republicans. Yeah. I think they're going to catch more shrapnel here for this. Yeah. I don't know. I think most people look at this and think, what a fucking mess these people

are. That's the most regular people are like, I don't know. I don't know. Let's go on a quick break. We come back. How the Supreme Court could change social media as we know it. And we'll speak to a friend of Pivot, New York Times pitch bot. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle.

When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.

It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you

do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Procrastination, putting it off, kicking the can down the road. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Carpet in the bathroom. Like, why? In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire.

Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Scott, we're back. The Supreme Court's new term gets underway, and recent additions to the docket include two cases that could have major implications for social media and content moderation. At the center of these cases are laws in Florida and Texas that limit the ability of big tech companies, including MetaX, TikTok, among others, to kick users off their platforms or remove individual posts. The lobbying group that represents the company say the laws violate the First Amendment, while the states argue they're allowed to regulate to make sure all users have equal access. So how important are these cases? The Atlantic quotes a law professor who says, I think this is without exaggeration the most important Supreme Court case ever when it comes to the Internet. I do, too.

This is like I cannot believe it. It's at the Supreme Court that it's not a First Amendment issue for these companies, that they're allowed First Amendment rights. These Texas and Florida laws came after the 2020 election on January 6th when Donald Trump got banned from several platforms. Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions, which is why the Supreme Court wanted to weigh in, presumably. Thoughts? I see the two as, I see it as bifurcated. I see the two as, I see it as bifurcated. I can understand the concern around government putting pressure on a media company to take down,

or, you know, which is essentially censorship. It's the government, yeah. But at the same time, I don't understand how you can tell a private company what they can and cannot say. If Facebook, if Meta or Google decide to take down content, that's their right. That's also free speech. So I bifurcate the two. What do you think? Well, I don't think this government's involved in this.

It's the companies making this. There's a whole other case where the government is speaking, talking about whether it's vaccine information. And that's another case, I think, I believe. And what's really problematic here is, as I've always said, these are private companies that have First Amendment rights, right? You don't have any right to be on Twitter. You just don't. You just don't. And if they don't want you on there or I don't like it and we can, you know, howl when Elon does it, which we do, or when Twitter did it, the right howled when Twitter, the former management did it.

But I don't think anyone has any right to be on these things, and they can kick off whoever they want. I don't even know why it's that the states, and it says government shall make no law, so states can't make a law. They do when you go to restaurants, I guess. I'm not a legal person, but I think they have to hold for the companies. Just like they did in the last term. There was the last term the companies won a lot of this stuff around terrorism, if you remember. They're not going to be heard till next year. And by the time the court rules, we could be well into the election season. Both laws are currently blocked from going into effect until there's a ruling. I'm sure there's a chilling effect on some of these companies.

I feel this is a slam dunk for the companies, but maybe I'm wrong. I agree. Are we engaging in censorship because we don't bring on every viewpoint? I just don't. These companies have the right to, if someone is trying to radicalize young men on YouTube, they have the right to take that content down. And the question is whether or not the First Amendment issue is whether or not the government has the right to influence what they're doing. Again, I think it all comes back to better laws that put these media companies on level ground as other media companies. Yeah. I don't know why you get equal access. That's the part I don't get. I mean, there are laws around television, but that's a government.

Well, I guess the internet's a government. But I don't know. Why would you get equal access to private things? I just, I don't know. When I was locked out of Twitter, I just said, I went on threads and I said, I think that's the right. Now, granted, it might be hypocritical to be screaming free speech and to, you know, have.

And by the way, I now think I wasn't, I don't think it was anything that Machiavellian, but I think it was just incompetence. But that's their right. I don't have a birthright or a natural constitutional right to be accepted on a platform. I wonder what Elon Musk, because he's all these, I mean, that whole genre of people, they're like free speech, free speech, even though they break it all the time, how they're going to win. I guess they will be for doing whatever the hell they want, right? Presumably. will be for doing whatever the hell they want, right? Presumably. Yeah, they're going to want the most latitude as possible because, I mean, they did kick Kanye off. There's just certain things you can't say. He's back on.

Oh, is he? Thank you. They make a reasoned assessment over what will move the stock price up or the value of our company up. And as we have seen, essentially, the companies that have the strongest moderation, there's a direct correlation between moderation and shareholder growth. If you want the Wild West, go to 4chan or 8chan and just see how much you like total free speech. The notion of free speech, or my understanding of the First Amendment, is that government shall pass no law that inhibits a company in terms of the content. So pass no law that inhibits speech. So one side of the argument makes sense, but companies can do what they want with the exception of slander and defamation. If they purposely distribute and highlight information they know to be wrong that creates economic or physical harm to somebody or some company, they are liable,

except if you're big tech. Yeah. I think the other case where the government's speaking to social media, there's another case around this, is more problematic. The government communicating danger or terrorism things. I think there might be a real chilling effect on that. I heard from a lot of academics this week, you know, Yoel being one of them in this interview I did with him is the chilling effect of these companies suing, being sued because of decision, but because of misinformation research, for one, and secondly, the chilling effect on companies of these cases, one of which is going to eventually rise to the Supreme Court, I think, which is about whether these companies and government can talk at all, right? If they can have, like government can have any just normal discussions around safety with these companies. And that's, you know, this is going to go on for a while. This is a big hobby horse of the right, for sure. We'll see.

It'll be interesting to see. This is, I can't imagine this. Given last year's rulings, I think they'll rule with the companies. I don't know where they wouldn't do it. Well, we'll see. These are really important. Just remember, the Supreme Court matters a great deal in where this is all going. We talk a big game, but unless Congress steps in and actually does their job, which doesn't seem like they're either pulling alarms or fighting their leaders or whatever, nothing's going to happen

here. But let's move on. Speaking of which, someone who does have a great, has great speech, let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Doug Jay, also known as the New York Times Pitch Bot. He remains anonymous. He's a person behind one of my favorite accounts on social media. Makes me laugh all the time. Every time I read it, New York Times Pitch Bot. Every day, the Pitch Bot mines the news to craft headlines and hot takes that are hilarious and ridiculous.

And it could be possibly New York Times stories. Sorry, New York Times, but they're funny. Some gems include is the Travis Kelsey Taylor Swift relationships Biden's Katrina, the iPhone 15 will move away from the lightning connector. Here's why that's bad news for Joe Biden. We want to understand how Elon Musk's ex might become half of the global financial system. So we talked to four NFT collectors at a Smashburger in San Mateo. Whether it's Chuck Schumer relaxing the Senate dress code to appease John Fetterman or Lauren Boebert groping her data to play, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are preoccupied with what's going on inside men's shorts. The pitchfork prefers to keep his identity

under wraps, so we'll be referring to him today by his alias, Doug Jay. Welcome, Doug Jay. How you doing? Great. It's great to be here. I love what you do. I love what you do. So I'd love you to tell me how you decided to do this. They're sort of, they're so on point of things that could actually happen. Is it just you want to do a parody or what? So I guess I sort of started doing it because the pandemic happened

and I didn't have time to write i used to write for a blog called balloon juice but i didn't have time i have two kids and well actually only had one kid when it began and i didn't have time to sit in front of the computer and write so i was like i want to do something fun on twitter and i really liked the federalist pitch bot and reason pitch bot and so i decided to do a pitch bot. So I did it for about a week. And then a friend of mine who's actually a conservative journalist, so he's working at Weekly Standard at the time, emailed me, DMed me and said, this is great. You got to stick with this. You were born to do this. And so that's how I really got into it. One thing about it is that it's a mixture of things, right? Like I'm not really

anti-New York Times necessarily. So it's sort of like, sometimes they're mean, sometimes they're mean, but in general, just trying to sort of capture a little bit what I think is this sort of journalistic zeitgeist that goes on in a lot of elite media publications. Talk about what that is from your, because let me read one of your most popular posts from 2021 during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. We wanted to understand what's happening in Afghanistan. So we talked to three unvaccinated Trump supporters at an Arby's in Harrisburg. where they drop into the middle of nowhere and they talk to people. And inevitably, of course, no matter where they go, right, the people are all Trump supporters or at the very least, you know, disillusioned Democrats or something like that. And also, they almost never, ever have someone say something intelligent in these interviews, right? I mean, I'm sure if you, I don't know, a friend of mine who's from South Dakota told me I'm wrong about this,

but my belief is that if you walked into just about anywhere, if there were 20 or 30 people there, one of them would actually be well-informed and have something intelligent to say about whatever the issue is. But I feel like they have like a laser-like focus on whoever's going to say sort of the most kind of dumb and pro-Trump thing that they can find. And I think it perpetuates a lot of stereotypes. Yeah, I agree with you. That's why it's funny, because it's like, oh, I read that story, right? I read that story that they did. But is it the New York, you said it's not the New York Times, you're talking about media in general for parody. It's more all the elite media. I've read the New York Times my entire life, so I sort of know the way that they talk, you know. But when I started doing

this, I started to realize that the Atlantic and a lot of Substack people are much worse than the New York Times, you know, much more sort of like the Atlantic's obsession with campus free speech. New York Times is bad about it too, but they're truly, truly obsessed with it. So I sort of branched off a little bit into other types of elite media and sort of also like, I don't know if you'd call them elite, but like very well-known sub-stackers like Matt Iglesias. And I guess Jonathan Chait isn't technically a sub-stacker, but he's a sub-stacker to me. Life has imitated art several times of the years where one of your headlines is almost verbatim, an actual headline in the Times or another place, which is funny and frightening. Yeah. So I get a lot, it's a very, very interactive thing. Like, almost everything

to do with the breaking stories is interactive, you know? I go on, I go into my DMs or mentions, and people are like, hey, hey, hey, this story's breaking. And then I always think to myself, as soon as it breaks, I'm like, I've got to think of the really dumb take on it and get it up there fast so that I get it up before it actually appears in print. Because three or four times I've done it, and then I was like, oh, and people said, oh, you missed an hour ago. The New York Times already ran that headline. In fact, I'd say more often than not, that's what happens with my really dumb takes, if I'm slow at all, is there will already be someone saying it, you know?

Nice to meet you, Doug Jay. Nice to meet you. What is your process? Will you come up with some ideas and then run them through a kitchen cabinet of friends or let them ruminate? And also, do you use generative AI to come up with ideas or screen them? What's your kind of creative process? So, the creative process is I look, I do definitely scan my replies and my DMs for ideas from people. But a lot of it is this, and this is why I feel like the AI angle on it is sort of a good angle, is I have about maybe about 20 templates for headlines.

There's some that are more popular than others. There's like six or seven that are my real go-tos. There's some that are more popular than others. There's like six or seven that are my real go-tos. And when something happens that I think is worth commenting on, I immediately just go through in my head all 20 of it. Or I don't always get through 20. Usually one of the first six or seven works. I go through all my templates and shove it into a template.

So it is very AI-ish in that occasionally I do a really freeform one. But for the most part, I have a very, very set template for it, which I think also is how the New York Times does its headlines. And so it's sort of, I think it's kind of works because it's a little bit AI-ish and it's called a pitch bot, but it also really does. It really is also what best captures sounding like them, I think. Is this just pure consumption? Is this just for joy? Is it part of a larger strategy to become a media personality and monetize it? Is it to influence culture? Or is it just a kick in the ass? What is the reward here? I would say it began 100% as just a kick in the ass.

And then I started to think, and then people would say to me, like people I really respected in media said, oh, I really like what you're doing. And it's, I think it's, I think that, I think they actually read it. I think it actually makes a difference. It's sort of, it's sort of prods people not to be so, uh, elite media, not to not. And so I decided, okay, well now I've got to be a little bit more serious about it, you know? And so I don't really like dark stories very much. And so, like, after there's a mass shooting or something, part of me is like, oh, God, I just want to log off for a little while. And then I

think, but this is where the media in some ways is at its very worst. And so, I actually feel like I got to go on there, make fun of these terrible things, because it's, you know, because they really are doing awful things that I think undermine attempts at, say, gun control, for example. I would agree. But some stories, obviously, like Lauren Boebert behaving badly at Beetlejuice or David Brooks posting about food prices in New York, they're just slam dunks, correct? Yeah, a lot of it, a lot of it's really, a lot of it is really just for fun. Like, like, you know, like, especially if some story comes up, and I'm getting like a million people DMing me and my friends are texting me. My wife is talking to me about it.

I think, well, this is just going to be fun for like the next 20 minutes. I'll just sit around and write silly stuff about David Brooks, you know. Although I do also think with the David, the Lauren Boebert one was just, I originally almost didn't want to do it because I don't really care about Lauren Boebert's personal life. It's not that bad, whatever she did. The David Brooks one, I feel differently about, right? Because I think it does feed into this really annoying, this really annoying thing of, you know, oh, everything's bad news for Biden and inflation so bad. And if you look at particularly how Brooks, quote unquote, apologized for it, right? He turned around and said, well, I know I'm a rich guy or drinking expensive bourbon. But, you know, sticker shock is how regular Americans feel when they see X. And I'm capturing that on the tweet. And so I knew he was I knew that's what he was doing sort of all along. sort of all along. And so, yeah, some of it like that, it's a slam dunk. But at the same time, it really is just the kind of thing that the media does that they really shouldn't do, in my opinion. Yeah, I would agree. You have frequent targets that you use. Maureen Dowd

comes up, Elon Musk and Glenn Greenwald. Between Glenn Greenwald and Maureen Dowd, you really do cover the thing. Do you have any personal favorites, templates that are your favorites? So I kind of like, I love doing the Maureen Dowd ones. The thing with Maureen Dowd is that this is a very stereotypical thing. She really, really reminds me of a lot of people in my mom's family. My mom's from a really big Irish family. And so that one is just fun. And those things are in my head anyway. They've been in my head my whole life. So I like doing those the best. I really like doing the hard to do,

but I really like the, in this Ohio town, it was a tradition one. Those are a lot of fun to do. Times have been tough in this Ohio town ever since the woke mob shut down the old Choco Taco factory. I like to, that's probably my favorite template. But it's very hard.

They're too hard to do. I can almost never do one properly. And I like the Indiana Diner one a lot, too. In this Indiana Diner, everyone has three questions. Is the quarry hiring? How's the breaded tenderloin? And then a third question. I like that one because someone from Indiana just wrote it for me.

Then I started to use it it what accounts do you admire um probably my all-time favorite account he's not really on uh twitter anymore it's oliver willis uh i think he just really gets politics in a way that hardly anybody else does um i really like atreus a lot. Uh, I really like, uh, she's not, she's a little mellower on Twitter. Not as funny as maybe she used to be. Uh, I like, I used, I like Gloria Ryan a lot. Um, she can be very, very funny. Uh, and I like, I liked, uh, a lot of the things I liked are gone. Federalist Pitchbot is gone. Um, the, uh, Reason Pitch Bot is gone. The Reason Pitch Bot is gone. And one of the ones I really, really liked was the fake Professor Jeff Jarvis account. That's good. Now, which I feel bad liking because I actually like Jeff Jarvis, too. And the guy who did it said he, it's a little bit like me with the New York Times. The guy who did it started making fun of Jeff Jarvis. And then he realized, actually, Jeff Jarvis isn't really that bad. There's much worse

people. And so it sort of branched off into kind of all purpose, you know, making fun of stupid tech stuff. I don't think that guy's very active anymore. But that was one of my all time favorites. What happens to that? How active do you stay? You know, with Elon's purchase of Twitter last year, the platform is exactly what it used to be. Last week, Scott called it the sewage system of a sewer. Is it still an effective place to do this for you? You're still posting actively. Do you think elsewhere is important, or is it just these things have a lifespan? I'm really ambivalent about staying on Twitter. I checked out Blue Sky and I checked out Threads and I didn't really like them as much, unfortunately. I don't really mind

Elon having all the fake followers and making everybody see his tweets and stuff. I kind of think it's funny, to be honest with you. A lot of the Elon stuff is just funny to me. It almost makes it better. But the stuff with the anti-Semitism is starting to really disturb me. And part of me thinks, you know, I've got to get off. We all have to get off of here. We're sort of just promoting this sort of proto-Nazi sort of movement, you know. I hope I'm wrong, but the anti-Semitism, I mean, there's the racism and the misogyny too. I don't know why the anti-Semitism seems even a little scarier to me right now. Right.

And when you think about that, when you're sort of making fun, and Elon's very easy to make fun of, is there anybody that's really pushed back at you among these? Glenn Greenwald would be one of the people I'd guess would be angry at you for this, or do they? Yeah, so Glenn, I have a long history with glenn actually uh most of which maybe i better not describe i think he might get pretty angry but uh yeah i i used to actually be a really big glenn greenwald fan and he was a really big balloon juice fan he'd show up in the comments and he'd email us and say he liked the stories and stuff um so i think he doesn't want to get into it with me because he knows that I know things that if I said about him, it wouldn't look very good.

Oh, wow. Wow. Wow. Are there any other journalists that push back or do they try to just laugh? Not really. Mostly they just, I have almost no hostile DMs like ever really. But I've got a lot of like people like Jonathan Martin showed up once to say I was all wrong. You know, Jonathan Martin and Matt Iglesias and Jonathan Shade have showed up

sometimes to say that they don't like the account. But it's funny. This isn't funny or stuff like that. But very few actually, I get much less criticism than I would have expected. Sometimes I actually am like, it's really weird to me. I don't have more hostile replies. And so I'll do like a name search. I'll do like pitch bot idiot or something like that to see if anybody said, you know, and I almost never find anything hostile. Well, I think they do hit close to home and you're like, oh, yeah, we do do that. Right.

When or that's the way we actually behave. And we really shouldn't. That's where I that's what I even though I just laugh at some of them out loud, what I do get from it is what you're, exactly what you're saying is, man, we got to stop being so reductive. Like when I look at the headlines, I'm like, oh, you're kidding me. This is exactly the complaint. I think the reflexive, what I really think is most dangerous, what I'm really trying to make for the most is this reflexive desire to equate both sides in some way. And there may have been times in political American political history where it did make sense to

equate both sides. But I just think it doesn't make any sense now. I mean, I think even when Democrats do bad things, right, they shouldn't compare them to the Republican bad things, because they're usually much worse. Whatever Trump has done is much worse, you know. But that doesn't make Bob Menendez okay, you know. I think it's very bad because I think in a weird way it ends up excusing bad behavior for Democrats by putting it in the context of bad behavior for Republicans. And I think that's bad too. Do you see this as if you were talking to a young journalist or a young comedian, it feels like these things kind of come and go. And what do you think, what advice would you have for a young journalist? Do you think this is an

effective means of, I mean, you're doing it anonymously, but is this a potential good weapon in someone's quiver to advance their career in journalism? So, I kind of think it is. I mean, I think that actually there are some, I guess, I don't know if they're younger anymore, but like one of the journalists who actually has done a lot of tweets that are sort of similar in style to mine is Dave Weigel.

And I think, at least for me, it bought a lot of credibility with me as a reader. I didn't really know who he was. I'd see him on Twitter, and he'd be making these really sharp points, making fun of media framing. And I sort of thought, you know, this guy is really pretty sharp. I can really trust him and read his stuff. So, yeah, I think if done properly, it would be a good thing for a journalist. I think some people do anyway.

Yeah. It reminds me a lot of Fake Steve Jobs, which know, which was really impactful more than, you know, it was very, very funny. And he was anonymous for a while. But I remember thinking it was super impactful in that, or Spy Magazine, when they used to have those columns, where it really did skewer the media in a way that made you think, wow, we really have got to stop doing what we're doing, especially as things become more dramatic. And I know it's meant just to be funny, and sometimes I just laugh at them. But it's a really interesting thing to really, all of those things made me as a journalist rethink what I was doing constantly, almost constantly, especially Fake Steve Jobs. Yeah, I totally agree about fake Steve Jobs. Yeah. And that's kind of the tone that I want to,

I mean, not all the time. Sometimes I do want to be mean, but that's basically the tone, the tone that I like to try to have, you know? Yeah. So last question, how long are you going to keep at it? Does it get exhausting? How many do you put out a day? So actually, so I actually, the thing that really keeps me going, I'd say, So actually, the thing that really keeps me going, I'd say, is my wife has a lot of suggestions about it. I have a bunch of friends that text me stuff. And then probably most importantly, I have a co-writer who probably DMs me about 20% of the things that I write.

But also alerts me to lots of stories and stuff like that. And so I think as long as people are still helping me out that way and prodding me to do it, I'll stick with it for quite a while. I don't do as many tweets as I used to. Something about how crazy Twitter got sort of depressed me, and I don't spend as much time on it as I used to. Yeah, well, I think that's the way it is for a lot of people. Are you happy now for Travis, Kelsey, and Taylor? Very happy. That's a good start. as Kelsey and Taylor.

It gives you a lot of... Very happy. That's a good... Is there any journalist you're ready to go at that you haven't besides Maureen? That's a good question. Well, so, by the way,

I don't really feel like I'm going at Maureen Dowd. I don't either. I just think it's funny. You know, what I'd like to do is make fun of the really bad New York Times columnist more.

Like, I think... I don't even really mind Maureen Dowd at all. I'm not a huge David Brooks fan, but I don't think he's the worst. I'd like to make fun of Brett Stevens and Pamela Paul more because I think that some of their stuff is really, really terrible. Well, they're right there. Well, none of us will bring it up with Maureen, I'll tell you. I know her, but none of us mention it to her. I just have to say. We're like, should we say? We don't know. We're not going to ask her. She's a really lovely person, actually. Anyway, Doug Jay, I love New York Times Pitch Bot. I think it's really funny. So keep the headlines coming and we really appreciate it. It's a public service. Thanks for having me. Thanks, Doug Jay.

Scott, thanks for indulging me. I love him. I think he's so funny and witty. And it's not mean and it's really funny, I think. But I think he does toe the line of meanness. He's not mean. There's a lot of really mean people on Twitter. He's not one of them. It's an enjoyable part of Twitter and I hope he keeps there, but I don't know. We'll see. One more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month at Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails.

I'm going to go first because we continue to search for the origins of Joey Bag of Donuts. Many of you have written to let us know the phrase goes back further than Mike Birbiglia. Comedian Don Herrera was talking about him back in the 80s. Let's listen. I was a little kid. I lived in South Philly. I'd see the guys in the corner. I'd learn from them. I'd see them. Hey, Louie, how come you didn't come around? Everybody was around. Hey, little Petey, big Petey, regular Petey, joke bag of donuts was here, Jimmy the woman, Nicky potato salad, squid lid, mussels marinara, irregular Petey, Carmela, lemonara, Irregular Petey, Carmella Lemon Cola, Orthopedie, Repeatey. How come you don't come around, eh?

A few of you also said Joey Bag of Donuts is a Wall Street phrase going back to the 90s. And of course, who can forget, as we said, Vinny Bag of Donuts references my cousin Vinny. We got more mail over this week than any other single issue. So it's a fail. We're never going to find the origins of Joey Bag of Donuts. But Scott, you keep saying that. So that it's a fail. We're never going to find the origins of Joey Bagadonas, but Scott, you keep saying that. So, that's our personal fail. But the win was that those two pair of

interviews with Yoel and Linda, I think it really was, it was really well done. I think it showed a lot of stuff that people needed to see and how difficult what's happening there is. That was, I would say, was a win. Scott? So, my win is, as a native son of California, I think we didn't have an opportunity to highlight the passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein, you know, one of the first female Jewish senators, ahead of the curve on assault weapons, ahead of the curve on women's rights, ahead of the curve on reproductive rights, was very, like, was pro-LGBTQ publicly before it was cool. LGBTQ publicly before it was cool. And, you know, she really lived a, she was a brave woman. And, you know, and unfortunately, her legacy is a touch tarnished. But when you look at her, when you look at her accomplishments, she just served the country and the state so steadfastly and was courageous. This was a woman who was brought to power by a murder.

And I think she, and personally, the thing that saddens me about this is she was also a moderate. She absolutely had a deep appreciation for the power and importance of business in the private sector. And it feels like there are so few people in the Senate who recognize that in order to have the empathy and programs that we need to help our less fortunate, we need a private sector that is vibrant and that can chug along and create tons of shareholder value. And I feel as if the number of people that I loosely describe as moderates is just declining. And especially someone who has that kind of courage and respect. She was a lion in the Senate. A grandmother, you know, married three times, born into wealth, but didn't, you know, always advocated for the poor.

I think she's just a real iconic figure. You know who gave an actual, you know, there was a big controversy when she hugged Lindsey Graham during the Senate hearings of someone. I guess it was one of the Supreme Court judges. He gave a very good eulogy of her. For a minute, the old Lindsey Graham was back. You know what I mean, who wasn't being, you know, a Trump suck up. They had a very close relationship. And he gave a wonderful, I guess, eul not popular to quote him, but he used to be quite sensible. And I felt for a minute like, oh, look, there he is. And there she is. And it was a different time. You know, everything's gotten so partisan. And it reminded me, and I know people will be mad at me for saying this, but he was incredibly articulate and smart about the bipartisanship. Even he seemed nostalgic for it, right? And here was a friend of his who died and who he became friends with, and they were able to do legislation together. It was interesting. He paid compliment to Ted Kennedy and her as the lion and, lately, most of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is just blather. But this was,

I was like, oh, that Lindsey Graham is, there he is. Like, it was interesting. But I thought you're right. She's a, she was a legend. I, I, I agree with you and I'm sorry for her final years. But good people, you know, plant trees, the shade of which they will never sit under. She was an incredible advocate. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of what I believe is the most beautiful ecosystem in the world, and that's California desert. And she was a tireless champion for protecting California deserts. There's just a lot of stuff that people won't remember, but that she had a real impact on. Anyways, my win is the late, great lioness of the Senate, Dianne Feinstein. My fail is, so on Sunday, Tottenham Spurs played Liverpool, and as is often the case in sports, it's 1-1 and they're playing not to lose,

push everyone, shove everyone to the defensive end of the field. And of course, they own goal and they lose. And there's just so much analysis around sports history that when you play not to lose, when you're like, go defensive, you almost always lose. And my sports analogy here is that I think that Democrats with Biden are playing not to lose. And let me just say it now. We are really risking a lot with Biden. And I'll be very overt here. several people, but I'll just mention one. I think you put Governor Newsom on a debate stage with Donald Trump, and people look at him, and they look at Donald Trump, and they hear what Governor Newsom says, I think he's a lock. And I think you put Biden on a stage for six to nine months against Donald Trump, oh my gosh, we're playing not to lose. We're playing not to lose.

So I just think as a party, if we're really serious about the best odds for winning, and I do, they say this every time, I think this election is massively important. I think if we reelect an insurrectionist who's a criminal, it's just, I mean, there's a lot here. We should not play to lose. Maybe we'll get lucky and Trump will go to jail and Biden will decide to do the right thing.

Maybe, you know. It's not going to happen by the election. I don't know. I know, I'm just saying. Could be. Could be. Who knows? But what, anyways, I'm really. I see you're very frustrated. I'm really worried here. What about Beto? Maybe Beto will come back, Scott, your favorite person. You mock me. I mock you because you were wrong. You kept picking loser after loser. I'm terrible at the politics, though. Yeah, well, then maybe we shouldn't listen to you.

Anyway, we'll see. I think you're right to articulate this. A lot of people do, for sure. I'm going to support you, except your Beto choice was idiotic and remains that way years later. Let me put it this way. The first presidential debate, the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, faces off against what are you excited to see and what are you nervous as shit to see? I get it. Biden or Newsom?

I get it. I get it. It's like watching the Linda Ricarino interview. I mean, you tune in and you're like, I can't wait to have America see Newsom face off against Trump. If it's Biden, we're all like, oh, fuck. Let's just hope he gets through it. I get it. But, you know, this is where we are. This is where we find ourselves. But yes, I get it. I get your worries, Scott Galloway, but we'll see where it goes. You never know. This is, look what happened. Like, we didn't have a government shutdown. Everyone thought

there was going to be one. Anyway, politics is certainly not boring anymore. Anyway, we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Okay, Scott, that's the show. We'll be back on Friday for more. I'm sure there'll be Ted McCarthy might be out of a job by the time we talk, but we'll see. Maybe not. Who knows? Who's to say? We'll be back on Friday for more. Scott, read us out. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Intertot engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows, Neil Saverio, and Gaddy McBain. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from

New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Cara, Have a great rest of the week.